I was reading some Twitter posts and came across something very interesting, something I had never heard before. It was the Lord's prayer from the Douay-Reims Bible, the traditional English Catholic Bible from 1582.
I was intrigued. Why is it translated that way? Normally, the word used there is "daily", but they are using "supersubstantial". So, of course, I Googled it, and was amazed. There was a very thorough article on the subject explaining it.
Here's a few takeaways from the article:
The Greek word used in the Gospel in two places (Luke 11:3 & Matthew 6:11) is "epiousios".
Not only are these the only places in the Bible where this word is used, they are the only places in all of literature!
The word was, in fact, invented by the Gospel writers and is derived from the root words "epi" meaning over or above and "ousia" meaning being, essence, or substance.
The word "ousia" is also found in such words as homoousia which describing the fact that Jesus Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, is of the same substance as God the Father, the first person of the Holy Trinity (i.e. 1 God, 3 persons).
The translation of "supersubstantial" is apt in this circumstance.
St. Jerome, who first translated the Bible from Greek to Latin, uses the word "daily" in one context for the word and supersubstantial in another. Yet, St. Jerome himself stated:
“We can also understand supersubstantial bread in another sense as bread that is above all substances and surpasses all creatures.”
Clearly, this is a reference to the Holy Eucharist. If it were meant simply as "daily" as in something you pray for each day, then they would have used a pre-existing word such as "hemera" which means daily. They intended for the word to mean something more. Plus, they specifically used the word bread. They didn't say food or sustenance, or anything other word, but bread.
Given those pieces of information, it seems clear they intended something very special and unique in the prayer. They are referring to bread, but bread whose substance is "above" or "beyond", something supernatural. Well, that accurately describes the Eucharist. Appearance of bread, but in substance, something greater, something supernatural. Specifically, the body and blood of Christ.
Have you ever been to Mass during the distribution of Communion and been concerned about the worthy reception of the Eucharist? I know I have been on many occasions. I would like to recount an event which took place yesterday which I found very strange.
It was daily Mass and people were going up to receive communion as per usual. A gentleman came forward whom I have never seen. Instead of placing one hand under another and making a sort of "table" with his hands upon which to receive the sacred species, he instead took the host with his index finger and thumb. The strangest part was that upon receiving the Eucharist, he leaned over and for several seconds whispered something to the priest. I have no idea what he whispered. Perhaps I am somewhat imagining it, but the priest seemed concerned after that. The prayers at the end of Mass seemed a little more rushed than usual.
I believe he did consume the Eucharist, which is the main thing. After receiving, also strangely, this person walked down the middle aisle of the church (where no one was sitting). Later, when Mass was over, he stuck around and was taking photos of the church while others were leaving.
I have no idea who this person was. I cannot say anything about the state of his soul or whether or not he was a practicing Catholic. However, these situations give me pause and I wonder how they should be properly addressed.
I always have a concern about someone who may be unstable receiving communion and then doing something like desecrating it or treating it with irreverence. It got me to wondering: how should priests address such situations? I searched for the topic of denying communion and under what circumstances that should be done. I found some interesting things.
The main people to whom Eucharist should be denied are those in persistent obstinate sin. One of the prime examples of this is politicians who publicly campaign on behalf of immoral things such as abortion. It's important to note that the Church says denial is only to those in public, persistent, obstinate sin. It cannot simply be a person who the priest believes lives as sinful life or is in a state of mortal sin.
A priest does not have certainty that a person is in a state of mortal sin. Perhaps they confessed their sin to another priest. Even if the priest has inside information, he is told to err on the side of caution. In fact, if a priest denies communion to a person who is committing a private sin (not known publicly), the priest could be committing a form of scandal. This form of scandal involves exposing someone's sins unnecessarily.
An interesting example of denying communion to someone in persistent sin is someone wearing an emblem announcing their support for a sin, such as wearing a gay pride sash. This sash would be a symbol indicating this person's current and ongoing support of gay pride, thus support for homosexual actions which are contrary to Church teaching.
However, ordinarily, the priest could not use a person's private sin as a reason to exclude them from communion.
So, what about a case involving an erratic person or someone just behaving strangely? Should communion be denied that person? The answer is yes. In an article by Fr. Edward McNamara on EWTN.com, he writes:
There might be some other cases when a priest has to decide on the spur of the moment, for example, when a person is in an obviously altered state and is clearly not fully aware of what he is doing. Such cases have more to do with public order and respect for the Eucharistic species than making a judgment as to a person's interior state.
This would be a tough judgment call in many cases. A person acting a little strange would not necessary mean they are in an altered state or do not understand the Eucharist. In the story I gave above, was the person in an altered state? I have no idea. I think if a person is acting in a truly strange way, it would be a valid assumption to think the person may receive unworthily or perhaps even desecrate Our Lord in the Eucharist. That would be the worst case scenario.
Where I attend Mass, there was a guy who seemed a little "out there". I'm not judging him or whether he's in a state of grace, but his behavior was unusual. He would wave his arms, sometimes with great speed, during the Mass. However, when he went to receive communion, he did so very reverently. He would kneel down and put his hands up for the Eucharist to be placed there. He would then immediately consume the host.
A priest could not legitimately refuse communion to this man, even if he was acting a little differently during the Liturgy. His comportment during reception of communion would certainly qualify him, barring any publicly-known mortal sin, to receive Our Lord under the appearance of bread and wine.
Any time the Body, Blood, Soul, & Divinity of Our Lord is at risk, it is scary and concerning. We must pray for all who receive communion that they do so in a worthy way, as spoken of by St. Paul. I believe reception on the tongue is an added guarantee of worthy reception and hopefully it will return soon.
Since Covid-19, there have been calls at many times and in many places for churchgoing parishioners to "JUST STAY HOME". We are told it's the same thing. God is everywhere isn't he? Why would we have to go to a physical building? Isn't the "Church" the communion of believers? Aren't we united by spirit and not physically?
I want to delve into this subject as there is a ton of confusion and controversy. This is not meant to be an exhaustive theological treatise on the subject, but just some of my own thoughts and ideas from my understanding. I do encourage debate so if you would like to add anything or disagree with me, please feel free to do so in the comments section.
Here is my response to the arguments above. Yes, God is omnipresent. He's not just in a church, obviously. But that is besides the point. God asks that we give special attention to him, not for his sake, but for our own and he designed this attention in a particular way.
How should we know the best way to worship God? There are countless possible ways we could do that, but are they all ways God wants? Not necessarily. God in the person of Jesus Christ instructed us on what to do.
John 6:50
This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread[c] which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
Our Lord goes on to say Do this in Memory of Me. Jesus Christ clearly identifies what exactly he would like done in order that we remember him. He intended for us to partake of his body, blood, soul, and divinity in the form of bread and wine. This is the ultimate sacrifice, the perfect sacrifice, from God himself.
The Mass is the greatest prayer to God that the Church offers as it is a re-presentation of the sacrificial death and resurrection of Our Lord in atonement for our sins so that we may be united with him.
Therefore God has told us specifically how we ought to worship him. This does not mean that other forms of worship are bad or wrong. The Church has plenty of other forms of worship such as the Rosary, the Chaplet of Divine Mercy, the Divine Office, meditation, etc. These all have their place, but the Mass is the ultimate.
The Mass must be done in person, so that we can receive the body and blood of Our Lord into our bodies and souls. In Catholic theology, we are not just a spiritual religion. Our faith is also physical. This is opposed to many other religions and other Christians who believe that the physical part of the world is inferior or unimportant. Therefore they diminish or reject sacramentals, paintings, statues, and other such things.
But it's not just the Mass which must take place in person - it's all of the sacraments. Baptism must use water, confession must be done in person with a priest, confirmation involves oil being placed on the head, etc. There are no purely spiritual sacraments. In fact, a sacrament is an outward sign of an inward reality.
God himself became incarnate in the form of a man. He was not satisfied to remain spiritual, but chose to become a physical person in order that we may come ever closer to him. We as human beings were designed with bodies in a physical world. When God created our world while creating the universe, he saw it and said it was good. We disagree with the Manicheans and dualists who believe that the physically created world is evil and that only the spiritual world is good. Christ became incarnate and thus sanctified the entire physical universe.
There is also a practical reason for in-person sacraments and gatherings. We are social beings. Telling each person to remain atomized is contrary to our nature. We need other human beings. At Mass every day we confirm our belief in the "Communion of Saints". Yes, the communion of saints involves those in heaven, but there is also a communal aspect to which we all belong.
Having said all of this, I must of course mention the caveat that we are not absolutely required to attend sacraments in person even if this will put people's lives at risk. As with everything, it's not completely black and white. Yes, we should avoid unnecessary risk, but we must also realize the vital importance the sacraments play in our lives and not be too nonchalant about dismissing them as less than this. I am not here to condemn anyone, who out of love of neighbor and desire to keep people safe, decides to stay home. I am simply emphasizing that our first obligation and duty and purpose is to worship God, and we best do that in the way he taught us.
Every single day that I attend Mass I hear the same, elaborate detailed message regarding Covid-19. Not one, but two in fact. Every single action of the laity is described in excruciating detail to ensure 100% compliance with all Covid regulation. Yet, little if any attention whatsoever is given to God-given Church law concerning the reception of the Blessed Sacrament. I have spoke about this previously. Yesterday, I was listening to a great talk by a holy priest and prior to his homily, he gave instruction, but not in service of Covid, but in service to God. It was quite refreshing.
As mentioned, each and every time I attend Mass, we are inundated with Covid regulation. The second you step inside the designated door, you are greeted by a team of Covid-tracers, people who take your full name, phone number, and ensure you answer correctly to Covid-related questions. You are then given a small piece of green tape which you must stick to your seat so that cleaners know which seats to decontaminate after Mass.
During the opening announcements, we are told the following each day:
Welcome.....
We pray that you are in good health.
We ask that all present respect the instructions given by our ushers and the guidelines in place to prevent the spread of Covid-19, including using hand sanitizers, maintaining a distance of 2 meters, and wearing face masks when entering, leaving, or moving within the church. We will not have a collection at this Mass, but there are collection boxes provided for you at the entrance and the exit of the church. Thank you for supporting our parish. At the time of communion, we will give you further instructions. At the end of Mass, we ask you to exit through the doors through which you entered the church.
Then right before communion, we get this message:
To ensure that the reception of Holy Communion takes place in a safe and respectful manner, we ask that you please following these instructions:
Instead of individually replying "Amen" upon receiving the Host, there will be one general attestation of Amen before distribution begins.
Please remain standing in your pew until invited forward by an usher.
Ensure your facemask is correctly worn before coming forward and maintain a 2 meter social distance in the communion line.
As you approach the front of the line, sanitize your hands before receiving communion, bow before the Host, in silence receive the host in your hand, step aside to consume the Host, return to your pew as directed by ushers.
Those unable to receive Holy Communion in the hand, may come forward to receive a blessing.
Yes, the message is actually that long. During the multi-minute messages during a 30-minute Mass, there is never even the slightest mention of far more important qualifications to receive communion. I have talked about this before. Yesterday, however, I found a homily on Youtube in which the priest in fact does go through the important aspects of the reception of communion.
His message was perfectly balanced, speaking almost exclusively of the spiritual requirements for worthy reception of the Eucharist. The video is linked below, but in brief, he mentioned the following:
Holy Communion should only be received by practicing Catholics. He goes on to say this means people who attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, and are living by the moral laws of the Church meaning you have no serious sin which has not been absolved by sacramental confession.
He then proceeds to explain why as he says "in the old rite", you do not say "Amen" when receiving communion. He says this practice is not really Catholic in that it can imply that our assent brings about the Real Presence, which is not a Catholic idea. He said the priest brings about transubstantiation, and our assent is not required. A very interesting point which I did not know.
He goes into detail about the mechanics of receiving the Eucharist such as placing one's tongue out far enough for the Host to be placed there correctly and to close one's eyes when receiving. He even goes on to speak about one's role in the traditional Mass with regards to saying the lines out loud, etc.
All of this advice is highly valuable and probably needed, at least from time to time, if not at every Mass. Yet we never hear these things.
Why are churches so gung-ho and careful about ensuring they following every tiny little detail of random Covid regulations and very lax about legitimate moral issues surrounding the worthy reception of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord? In fact, most of the announcements and specifications are made up by the parish itself. There are basic guidelines issued by the government, but in many cases such as the one above, the church voluntarily chose to have that many announcements to ensure compliance.
I want to say I am not criticizing anyone involved in carrying out tasks associated with Covid compliance. I am simply saying if we can have detailed Covid announcements, we can have spiritual reminders as well.
I recently found out about a document issued by Pope Pius V soon after the Council of Trent, sometime in the late 1560 and early 1570s called De Defectibus. In it, almost every imaginable scenario is presented with regards to the validity and laicity of the Mass if certain events. I will look at these from time to time on this blog.
Under the section Defective Materials, it explains what should happen if a gust of wind or an animal carries away a consecrated host, which Catholics believe to be the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus.
Here is what the document spells out:
III. 7. If the consecrated host should disappear, either from some chance cause such as wind, or by a miracle, or from being consumed by some animal, and cannot be recovered; then another must be consecrated, after first being offered, beginning at the passage: Qui pridie quam pateretur.
A big debate among strong Catholics is whether to attend the Tridentine Mass, which is celebrated in Latin or to attend the vernacular Mass which was made a possibility following the Second Vatican Council.
There are two extremes in this debate. One side is strong proponents of the traditional Latin Mass. They believe it continues a liturgical tradition dating back many centuries and is preserved to this day. They believe the new form of Mass, in the vernacular, represents an unnecessary novelty in Catholic worship. Some even go so far as to say the vernacular form of Mass is invalid.
On the other extreme are those who are strongly opposed to the Latin Mass. They see it as going back to the past and refusing to modernize. They believe the Mass hasn't gone far enough, and that even more changes need to be made, including the removal of priestly vestments, the inclusion of women in the priesthood, married clergy, and much greater lay participation. This is only talking about the liturgy. They also want the church to change on many moral issues.
Again, these are the two extremes. There are those in the middle as well, from both sides. Some people really enjoy the Latin Mass and believe it is the best form of liturgy or at least their preference, but they are also not against the vernacular service. As well, there are those who prefer the vernacular Mass, but think it's fine to have the Latin Mass as well.
I believe what has actually happened is that many have gone beyond what was promulgated in Vatican II.
For example:
- It is common for lay people to be present in the sanctuary during Mass, however this was not mentioned during Vatican II
- Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion have become "ordinary". In some churches, they are present at every Mass as a matter of course. In fact, these ministers are only supposed to be used as their name implies, in "extraordinary" circumstances. For example, the priest is injured and cannot give communion to all people.
- Everyone goes to communion. It is now common practice for every person at church to go to communion regardless. However, only those in the state of grace should go, and only Catholics.
- Latin was never forbidden in the vernacular masses. Many Latin and even Greek phrases can and often should be used in vernacular Masses.
- The Latin Mass was never replaced by the vernacular Mass. Many are under the false assumption that with the advent of Vatican II, the Latin Mass was relegated to history. This is not the case and the current pope is reintroducing the Latin Mass as a more common form of the Mass.
- Some of the language used in the vernacular does not properly reflect the Latin. This will be corrected very soon.
My personal opinion is that I generally enjoy going to the vernacular or common Mass. I can understand it better and take a lot from it. I believe they need to incorporate Latin elements because they can be easily learned and can add some history to the experience as well as reverence.
I also attend Latin Mass occasionally. I find it offers a different perspective and reflects the fact that we are offering a sacrifice to God which is eternal and it's not about the priest's homily or the good music or "having fun", it's about celebrating God as well as Jesus in the Eucharist.
I think our best approach is to come to an appreciation for both forms of the Mass.
A report has emerged that while Stephen Harper was at a funeral service for Romeo LeBlanc, former governor general of Canada, in Memramcook, N.B., he was given the consecrated Eucharist at a Catholic Mass, but that he did not eat it! The video is somewhat ambiguous in that it is not completely clear what happens to the Host.
The mainstream media is reporting the incident with its usual Catholic ignorance. Somehow, even though 43% of Canadians are Catholic, by far the largest religion in the Country, the media acts like it's this rare religion that no one has any information about! They have no respect for the severity of this matter. They continually refer to the consecrated Eucharist, which is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, as a wafer! If all Stephen Harper had done was put a "wafer" in his pocket, no one would care. But it's much MUCH more than that. The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life!
What's worse is that the media seems to be focusing more on another incident that happened with Stephen Harper. Apparently he was 1 minute and 40 seconds late for a photo op with the G8 leaders in Italy. This too was called a "faux pas". Apparently, committing blasphemy against Jesus Christ is the equivalent of being less than 2 minutes late for a photo.
Just how bad is blasphemy against the Eucharist? According to St. Thomas Aquinas:
In like manner the third species of sacrilege, which is committed against other sacred things, has various degrees, according to the differences of sacred things. Among these the highest place belongs to the sacraments whereby man is sanctified: chief of which is the sacrament of the Eucharist, for it contains Christ Himself. Wherefore the sacrilege that is committed against this sacrament is the gravest of all.
Therefore, sacrilege committed against the Eucharist is the gravest of all sacrilege. If Stephen Harper truly did put the host in his pocket, that would have been a worse sacrilege than spitting on a sacred statue or icon, or hitting the priest, or any other form of sacrilege. Of course, his personal culpability might be low or non-existant if he was unaware of his offense, assuming he committed one.
Another big problem with this whole scenario is that he should not have received the Eucharist in the first place, since he is not Catholic. Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada and as such has people around him constantly advising him on issues. They advise him on protocol, ways to behave, etiquette, rules of engagement. You would think that someone in his department would be Catholic, or that at least they would have researched Catholic beliefs about something so central. I remember a couple of years back, Stephen Harper was at the opening ceremony of a Sikh place of worship. He did everything "right", from wearing a temporary turban, to removing his shoes. Sikhs account for just 0.5% of the Canadian population. Compare this to Stephen Harper doing something that is not just an etiquette issue, but a violation of Catholic belief (i.e. receiving the Eucharist while not Catholic). It violates a Catholic belief at the center of our worship. According to Aquinas, this is the greatest sacrilege. And Catholics constitute 43% of the population! What Harper did would be the worse than going to a synagogue and feeding the guests pork!
The Senate Speaker Noël Kinsella didn't help matters with her comments which go against Catholic teaching. According to TheStar.com, Kinsella said the following:
"As a Catholic, I was therefore pleased to see the Prime Minister of Canada express his solidarity and communion with all those present in the sanctuary as we celebrated the life of the former governor general."
Stephen Harper would have shown more solidarity with Catholics by following the rules of the Catholic Church. How does violating the rules of the place you are visiting constitute "solidarity"? Secondly, Ms. Kinsella made an error in stating that they were celebrating the life of the former governor general in the sanctuary. Only the priest and altar servers are allowed in the sanctuary during the Mass. The congregation sits outside the sanctuary.
We are not 100% certain of what happened in this incident, and I think it's best to give Harper the benefit of the doubt and assume he consumed the Body and Blood of Christ. Obviously this is preferrable to desecrating the Eucharist. In any event, however, something wrong happened. That is disturbing enough, but what's also disturbing is how the media is reporting the incident. They are treating it very lightly, and sometimes even with comedy, as if it's funny. No one is treating it very seriously, perhaps except a few Catholic publications.
This just reconfirms the statement that anti-catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice. People feel free to lash out at the Catholic Church anytime they feel like it. People are extra careful not to offend Jews or Muslims, but when it comes to Catholics, you can say pretty well anything and no one will so much as cough. There is something very wrong with this. How is that when it comes to groups that constitute less than 5% of our population, people are very concerned not to offend them, but when it comes to Catholics, who make up 43% of the populace, people don't care at all.
Imagine if someone had done something to desecrate or injure the sensibilities of another religion. Would there be newspaper articles making light of it? Even if it was done inadvertantly, you would never seem a comedic treatment? Try to invision an article which says the following: "Prime Minister Harper did faux pas today when he accidentally wore a swatstika shirt into a Jewish Synagogue." or "Prime Minister Harper made a funny gaffe when he stepped on a Koran today in a Mosque", or how about "The Prime Minister made a couple of misteps today. The biggest one was missing a meeting by almost 2 minutes, the other, less important incident, was that he accidentally spit right on a Sikh holy place." The Prime Minister in these cases would probably be charged with a hate crime, or at least people would be very angry. Yet, when he does something against the Catholic population, it goes in the humour section of the newspaper.
At least one good thing might come out of this. Many people, including many Catholics, are unaware that only Catholics should receive Catholic communion. As people read about this incident, they may learn about this rule, and we may take a general step closer to living by the rules.
I had an awesome time at the Eucharistic Congress. In attendance were over 1,000 priests, hundreds of bishops, and over 20 cardinals. This was truly an event of huge proportions.
During the congress, we attended the largest mass in the world every day. These were beautiful ceremonies. The procession itself took over 10 minutes, by the time all the bishops had been seated.
The event was attended by over 20,000 people. This was truly awe-inspiring. No extraordinary ministers were needed for Eucharist. There were plenty of priests on hand. I've been to mass when there's less than 50 people there, and extraordinary ministers will be employed. This is simply unnecessary and possibly wrong.
I met my cousin Fr. Roy Farrell. I actually ran into him several times during the Congress. That was a good surprise.
I met a lot of great people as well. Many people my age who have devotions to the Blessed Sacrament, to Christ, and to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
One of the emphases of the congress was Eucharistic Adoration. Spending an hour with our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. This can be a very powerful devotion.
All in all, this was a very powerful experience. We will look forward to the next event in 2012 in Dublin, Ireland!
A few months before he died in 1979, Bishop Fulton Sheen gave a television interview. The reporter asked, “Your Excellency, you have inspired millions. Who inspired you? Was it the pope?”
Bishop Sheen responded that it was not the pope or a cardinal or another bishop or even a priest or nun. It was an eleven-year-old girl. He explained that when the communists took over China in the late forties, they imprisoned a priest in his own rectory. Looking through the window, he saw the soldier enter the church and break open the tabernacle, scattering the Blessed Sacrament on the floor. The priest knew the exact number of hosts: thirty-two.
Unnoticed by the soldiers, a young girl had been praying in the back of the church and she hid when they came in. That night the girl returned and spent an hour in prayer. She then entered the sanctuary, knelt and bent over to take one of the hosts on her tongue.
The girl came back each night, spent an hour in prayer and received Jesus by picking up a sacred host with her tongue. The thirty-second night, after consuming the final host, she made an accidental sound, awakening a soldier. He ran after her and when he caught her, he struck her with his rifle butt. The noise woke the priest – but too late. From his house, he saw the girl die.
Bishop Sheen said that when he heard about this, it inspired him so much that he made a promise that he would spend one hour each day before Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. He always said that the power of his priesthood came from the holy hour.
Tonight, brothers and sisters, we celebrate the institution of the Eucharist. At the end of the Mass we will have a procession inside the church to adore our Savior. We will invite you to spend an hour with Jesus. From him comes our strength.
(Special Thanks for this article goes to Fr. Phil Bloom from http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2964/homilyholythursday.html)
Throughout the history of the Catholic Church, innumerable miracles have occurred. Although there are hundreds of officially recognized miracles, these represent but a small percentage of the many thousands, even millions which have occurred throughout the Church's 2000 year history. Today, I will examine one of these miracles, the amazing Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano.
The miracle happened in the city of Lanciano, Italy around the year 700. A priest there had trouble understanding the doctrine of transubstantiation, which was believed since the time of Christ and recognized by the Church, but not given its technical name until the 1200s. As he said the words of the consecration (this is my Body, this is my Blood), the bread and wine physically changed into live flesh and live blood. The blood formed into 5 groupings. The priest went into an ecstatic state, and after some time, said to the congregation there, "Behold the Flesh and the blood of our Most Beloved Christ." Upon saying this, the congregation ran to the altar, began to cry and beg for mercy from Jesus Christ.
Although this happened about 1300 years ago, the blood and flesh remain to this day in a church in Lanciano, Italy, and has been thoroughly observed and scientifically examined by top scientists. In 1971, Professor Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy, and Professor Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena conducted scientific studies on the blood and flesh. All scientists who have studied this miracle have come to the same unbelivable and miraculous conclusions (from Wikipedia):
The Flesh of the miracle is real Flesh and the Blood is real Blood.
The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart, which would be impossible to obtain through dissection.
In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium. The Flesh is a heart complete in its essential structure.
The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood type, AB, which is also the same blood type found on the Shroud of Turin and all other Eucharistic Miracles.
In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
There is no trace whatsoever of any materials or agents used to preserve the Flesh or Blood.
This is but one of the millions of miracles which have happened through the grace of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father. Hopefully, I will continue to add more of these amazing miracles in the days, weeks, and months to come.
The Eucharist is the most important part of a Christian's life. It is the pinnacle of the Christian experience. It involves receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ into our own bodies. It is a sacred act which was established by Christ at the Last Supper. Just read John 6, around verse 40. He told his disciples to eat his blood and drink his flesh. Then to make himself clear, he said his flesh and blood are true food and true drink. Many of the people there had a hard time accepting this teaching, but he said to do it anyway. And then he told future generations to do it in his memory, and if they didn't, they would have no life in them. Obviously, people would not be offended if Christ said drink grape juice and eat crackers in remembrance of me, so it was definitely his body and blood. Also, we note that he did not say he was being symbolic or anything, so he was being literal. Protestants, who like to think they read the Bible literally, have no choice but to accept at face value what Jesus is saying here.
The word "Eucharist" comes from the greek verb for to give thanks. This is appropriate since we receive the Eucharist in memory of Jesus Christ and to give him thanks for what he has done for us.
Because Jesus continually gives himself to us in this eternal and perfect sacrifice, it is fitting that we as Christians partake in this truly amazing gift, in a way which is appropriate for what is happening. We are receiving God Himself into our bodies. I fear that many, even among Catholics, do not treat this event with the honor and respect that it is due.
To correctly receive the Eucharist, one should line up when their turn comes, and peacefully move toward the Minister of Communion, whether it's the Priest or an Extraordinary Minister of Communion. There are two options for taking the Eucharist: by hand or directly into the mouth. If one receives on the tongue, simply open the mouth, slightly move out the tongue, and respectfully receive the Eucharist when it is laid upon the tongue. If receiving by hand, place the right hand under the left hand, and present your hands horizontally so that the Eucharist can be placed upon your left hand. While it is being placed on your hand, the Eucharistic Minister will say, "Body of Christ", at which time you respond with "Amen." Then with your thumb and forefinger of your right hand, lift the Eucharist and place it in your mouth. Do not chew the Eucharist, let it melt in your mouth. You should make the sign of the cross at this point also. Then silently return to your pew, to say prays, whether kneeling or sitting for several minutes.
People who do not understand the significance, or do not believe the significance of the Eucharist should not receive the Eucharist. There is too much danger of blasphemy and sacrilege. Also, if a person has not reached a certain level of maturity, they too should not receive the Eucharist. Only someone in the right state of mind should partake in this gift. People who are aware of mortal sin they have not yet repented for, should also avoid the Eucharist until they have received absolution.
Another point is that people who exhibit disagreement with the Catholic Church on dogmatic issues should also not receive the Eucharist. This is different than to be struggling with a doctrine or dogma. Many people struggle with faith from time to time. That is ok, and the person may continue to receive the Eucharist. It only becomes an issue if someone is vociferously against a Church teaching. People who support abortion, for example, should not receive Eucharist, until they've amended their thinking to suit a culture of life. To summarize this point, people not in communion with the Church should not receive Communion.
Maltreatment of the Eucharist is the ultimate blasphemy, and we should our best to prevent it. Let's take care as Christians to properly receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in a matter that is fitting for the Source and Summit of the Christian Life.
